Trade mark decision

BL Number
Decision date
12 November 2001
Hearing Officer
Mr M Reynolds
Inline Management Ltd
Brandid Ltd
Sections 5(1); 5(2)(a); 5(2)(b)


Section 5(1) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(a) - Opposition failed

Section 5(2)(b) - Opposition successful

Points Of Interest

  • 1. Costs: reduction for delay in providing evidence


The opposition was based on the opponents' Community Trade Mark application for registration of a stylised letter K, which claimed priority from an earlier UK application, since abandoned. After some delay the opponents eventually provided evidence in support of the priority claim. As the marks were nearly (but not quite) identical the Hearing Officer decided that the proper basis for opposition was Section 5(2)(b). In this he followed the Appointed Person’s decision in BAYWATCH (BL O/051/01). The fact that the underlying UK application had since lapsed did not affect the Community Trade Mark priority claim (see Article 29(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 of 20 December 1993). The Hearing Officer therefore concluded that the opponents' Community Trade Mark application took priority, was in respect of a similar mark and goods which in some cases were identical. The opposition therefore succeeded under Section 5(2)(b).

The Hearing Officer reduced the costs awarded, in view of the opponents' delay in supplying evidence of priority.

Full decision O/499/01 PDF document55Kb